The rapid spread of an initially unique haplotype, driven by strong positive selection, is expected to generate the profile of linkage disequilibrium we have observed (18), establishing that UK industrial melanism in the peppered moth was seeded by a single recent mutation that spread to most parts of mainland Britain and also colonized the Isle of Man

The second comment at the bottom of the page is from one of the authors of the paper, which implies that they haven't yet definitively nailed down the time of the appearance of the mutation. As you say, though, that the carbonaria morph was present in the pre-industrial population at a frequency of 2%, the mutation at least predates industrialisation. Thanks for the feedback. I'll leave you to be the voice of reason with Crucible.

canalon wrote:Crucible, I would add that using your family as a population in evolution is not a good idea. Because what generally constitute a population in evolutionary theory is a group of interbreeding individuals. So unless you want to tell us that your family has some generally frowned upon habits when it comes to mating, I suggest you rethink your example. So since in general populations are large enough to limit breeding from close kin, the effect of the removal of one gene copy is generally minimal. Unless the population is quite small. But what you are trying to talk about is generally described as genetic drift, it is well known effect that can be measured and studied (but its outcome are generally not predictable). Look it up.

It's not just genetic drift as caused by sampling. It's total removal of an allele from the population - and then back.wiki

Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling.[1]

The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces.

Crucible wrote:It's not just genetic drift as caused by sampling. It's total removal of an allele from the population - and then back.

But that is because your "population" is not a population. It is not reproductively isolated. Genes are coming from outside. It is just as if you were trying to say that it is impossible for life to appear on earth because of the laws of thermodynamic. Entropy must increase or at least say the same, ergo life is impossible. And we all know that it could only be true if we were considering that the Earth is a closed system. Ignoring the large glowing yellow thing hanging out in the sky an average of 12h a day.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

It is just as if you were trying to say that it is impossible for life to appear on earth because of the laws of thermodynamic. Entropy must increase or at least say the same, ergo life is impossible. And we all know that it could only be true if we were considering that the Earth is a closed system. Ignoring the large glowing yellow thing hanging out in the sky an average of 12h a day.

you are just making stuff up for a simile that has absolutely no connection.

Crucible, the fact that you make a definition, do not adhere to it and thus apparently create paradoxes, does not make you look smart.

If your population is your family, fine, great. What you are doing is your problem. BUT then you cannot call-in the brother in law and suddenly claim a change in the population. Because either the BiL can reproduce within the family, and he is part of the population whether he has done so or not (because his genes are part of the gene pool available to your population), or he is not part of the population, and he can never be a part of it. But you cannot claim that genes appear from nowhere.

As for my example it is relevant (and sadly the argument has been made) because just like the Earth is not a closed system (and hence the laws of thermodynamic cannot apply), neither is your family. The gene pool where you BiL comes from is the same as the sun in my example.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

Crucible, the fact that you make a definition, do not adhere to it and thus apparently create paradoxes, does not make you look smart.

what are you talking about ? I adhere to my definitions. Show where, or stop making these continual accusations, please.

If your population is your family, fine, great. What you are doing is your problem. BUT then you cannot call-in the brother in law and suddenly claim a change in the population.

Sure I can. He was not in the population before, but was later. You, on the other hand, seem to be inventing definitions and rules ad hoc.

Because either the BiL can reproduce within the family, and he is part of the population whether he has done so or not (because his genes are part of the gene pool available to your population), or he is not part of the population, and he can never be a part of it. But you cannot claim that genes appear from nowhere.

I didn't. He was not part of the population originally. ( my family). He then came from outside, later. You are making fantastic new claims along the way, you know.

What you say implies that no hybridization can occur if it did not occur before.

As for my example it is relevant (and sadly the argument has been made) because just like the Earth is not a closed system (and hence the laws of thermodynamic cannot apply), neither is your family.

You're confusing things by making out that I need to claim closed systems. Where does that definition of "population" come from ?

It might be better if you just defined "population" as you see it. then we can see where you are coming from...and you will have to abide by it.

Since this is a grown up forum, in order to show how simple and clear this is, I could suggest that instead, for the scenario, that my sister just had a "one-time thing" in a car back seat. He never became part of my family. She went outside and brought the gene into the family.

Now you can see how clear and easy my explanations are. It's a little improved now, what with the easier sister.

Well, I've done an honest but short search for a definition of "population" that had the kind of stipulations which might be presented against my little presentation, and didn't find such. I'm open to any definitions being presented which would presumably be unhelpful to my argument.

Moving on, perhaps we might more fully explore the thread author's lament - though within the rules here - not about Bio Online or moderation. About people such as Dawkins and Coyne, and how they attempt to suppress dissenting voices and smear some of the great scientists.

"A population is all the organisms that both belong to the same species and live in the same geographical area. The area that is used to define a sexual population is such that inter-breeding is possible between any pair within the area and more probable than cross-breeding with individuals from other areas. Normally breeding is substantially more common within the area than across the border."

Therefore, there must be limited gene flow between populations, and the population must have some reproductive isolation.

"A population is all the organisms that both belong to the same species and live in the same geographical area. The area that is used to define a sexual population is such that inter-breeding is possible between any pair within the area and more probable than cross-breeding with individuals from other areas. Normally breeding is substantially more common within the area than across the border."

Therefore, there must be limited gene flow between populations, and the population must have some reproductive isolation.

Key word "some". Sis would never have had to go outside for it if I hadn't been killed by the bus.

Crucible the more I read you, the more I get confuse to what is your point. You want to use your family as an example of a population, aptitude and I are trying to explain to you that using such a small population that is not even reproductively isolated (unless you are one of the last Hapsburg from Spain) is not a very good example to make any extrapolation. And yet you keep trying to tell us that we are wrong.

So would you please tell me why you think what happens to a gene in small population that can get them easily from a larger outside population is of any importance to anything?

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)